B.C. Hydro is getting ready to tell the utilities commission that it's losing $100 million worth of stolen electricity to grow ops every year.
The Crown corporation is including the estimate as part of its justification for spending spend $930 million on smart power meters for customers. The meters should make it easier to detect theft, it says.
That $100 million figure should tell us something about the foolishness of our current drug policies.
It's big money, equivalent to the electricity used by 77,000 homes, B.C. Hydro told delegates at the Union of B.C. Municipalities convention this month.
The corporation also says grow ops use three to 10 times as much electricity as an average house.
Take the midpoint for grow op power use and the $100 million means some 17,000 grow ops are stealing electricity right now in the province.
All these numbers are a little overwhelming. But consider that there are 1,300 liquor stores, public and private, in the province. For every store, there are 13 grow ops stealing electricity.
But that's far from the total number. Many operators use generators or take the risk of running up big B.C. Hydro bills and hope they don't get caught.
And there are big outdoor marijuana crops across the province.
The RCMP does annual fall patrols, often using planes and helicopters. Last year, officers chopped down 29,000 plants on Vancouver Island, likely a fraction of the total outdoor plantations.
So, if B.C. Hydro's submission to the B.C. Utilities Commission is accurate, there are certainly more than 20,000 grow ops in the province at any time and could be up to 30,000.
Which suggests that the idea that police are actually going to make any real dent in the marijuana industry is pure fantasy.
It's physically impossible - without thousands more police officers on the assignment - to deal with that number of offenders.
The number isn't the only issue. Estimates of the value of the marijuana industry to B.C. are all over the map, with Forbes magazine putting it at $7 billion a few years ago.
Conservative estimates have the industry contributing $3 billion to $4 billion a year to the economy.
That virtually ensures that as fast as police detect one grow op and seize the plants and equipment, another one will open.
So on one hand, there's an expensive and largely pointless effort that makes no real impact on marijuana production and sales in the province.
And on the other, there are the negative impacts.
The most significant is the enormous boost handed to criminal gangs. Because marijuana is illegal, the grow ops are hugely profitable. The money enriches the gangs. It also fuels the rivalries and gang wars that bring violence to communities.
That's understandable. Practically, growing marijuana and growing tomatoes involves similar input costs. Tomatoes sell for about $1 a pound. Marijuana brings more than $3,000 a pound at the retail level. The profit motive ensures the grow ops aren't going away.
And police have pointed out that gangs often trade B.C. marijuana to their U.S. counterparts for cocaine that is then imported into this province.
It would simply be foolish to continue this costly, futile charade.
So why not legalize and regulate marijuana?
That doesn't mean ignoring the risks of pot use, which are real, despite the denials of the more enthusiastic supporters.
But alcohol and tobacco both have much more serious risks. We have accepted that regulation is the best way to manage them.
And it will not eliminate illegal grow ops. There is still a good export market.
But it would cut into the criminal profits. Police would have a slightly more manageable task. And crime would be reduced.
Californians will vote next month on legalization.
It is long past time for Canada to acknowledge that the current drug efforts waste money and increase the reach of crime and that it is time to try something new.
Footnote: California's government estimates taxes on legal marijuana sales could produce $1.4 billion a year in revenue, while providing significant savings in policing and prison costs. The initiative - to be voted on Nov. 2 - is opposed by some police, politician and religious groups and by the states beer and liquor distributors who fear lost profits.
Friday, October 15, 2010
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
B.C. Hydro stats support legal, regulated maraijuana
The Baltimore Sun has noticed B.C. Hydro's estimated that $100 million worth of electricity is being stolen each year for grow ops. Reporter Jay Hancock helpfully reminds readers that British Columbia "is to pot what Texas is to oil" in a post here.
The Times Colonist also noticed. An editorial today looks at the numbers and concludes, based on B.C. Hydro data, that $100 million of stolen electricity would power about 17,000 grow ops. Add in outdoor grows and indoor operations using generators or legal power and on any given day there are some 20,000 to 25,000, the editorial concludes.
Isn't it time to legalize and regulate marijuana, the editorial asks.
The Times Colonist also noticed. An editorial today looks at the numbers and concludes, based on B.C. Hydro data, that $100 million of stolen electricity would power about 17,000 grow ops. Add in outdoor grows and indoor operations using generators or legal power and on any given day there are some 20,000 to 25,000, the editorial concludes.
Isn't it time to legalize and regulate marijuana, the editorial asks.
Useful update on the BC Rail corruption trial
Ian Reid was in court and has an interesting post on the reasons for yet another delay in the trial at his blog The Real Story.
"Outside the courtroom, Special Prosecutor Bill Barardino went off the record with the three reporters in court to try and explain why he’s delaying the trial again. Seems he’s not been able to reorganize his trial strategy and shorten the trial. He also wasn’t able to confirm that his next witness will be former finance minister Gary Collins, despite the fact that he’s sent a letter to the defense informing them that Collins is the next witness."
See more here.
"Outside the courtroom, Special Prosecutor Bill Barardino went off the record with the three reporters in court to try and explain why he’s delaying the trial again. Seems he’s not been able to reorganize his trial strategy and shorten the trial. He also wasn’t able to confirm that his next witness will be former finance minister Gary Collins, despite the fact that he’s sent a letter to the defense informing them that Collins is the next witness."
See more here.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Scientists building a whole new salmon species to farm
I'm keen on building a better world through science.
But the idea of creating a new species of salmon in the lab, patenting it, raising the new creature in fish farms and selling it to consumers freaks me out, as the young people used to say.
That's what AquaBounty, a U.S.-based aquaculture company, is proposing. The company has applied for U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval for its genetically modified Atlantic salmon. It even has a name for the new fish - AquaAdvantage(r) Salmon.
AquaBounty likes the fish because it reaches market size in 18 months; normal farmed Atlantic salmon take three years.
The new fish was engineered that way. The company took Atlantic salmon DNA and added a gene from Chinook salmon, which are bigger eaters.
Then it added a gene from the ocean pout, a big eel-like fish. The pout has remarkable tolerance for cold water; its gene triggers the Chinook eating gene to help the new fish pack on weight quickly.
The plan is to produce eggs for the new AquaAdvantage fish at the company's Prince Edward Island plant. They would be flown to Panama where the salmon would be raised in land-based tanks. Then they would make their way back to our tables.
We eat genetically modified foods every day. Most people's cupboards are full of food products - corn, soy, rice - that rely on genetically modified seeds.
Not everyone agrees, but the benefits in increased food production have widely been seen to outweigh the drawbacks.
But the AquaAdvantage(r) Salmon is the first effort to create a new animal, bird or fish as a food source.
As they say in the movies, what could possibly go wrong?
The FDA has given the fish preliminary approval for human consumption. The meat isn't chemically or nutritionally different from Atlantic salmon. But the U.S. agency hasn't yet given approval for the plan.
Critics aren't convinced. Some research, they say, suggests more allergies could be created by genetically modified food.
But the bigger issues are around the impact of the fish on the environment. What if the AquaAdvantage salmon escaped from the fish farms. It's genetically programmed to grow twice as fast as real Atlantic salmon. That could mean it would be twice as effective in gobbling up food sources, leaving the wild fish struggling to compete.
No worries, says AquaBounty. The P.E.I. lab will only create eggs that produce sterile females. The Panama fish farms mean that even if there is an escape, the salmon will die in the warm rivers in that country.
And if, through some bizarre series of circumstances, the ubersalmon ended up in the oceans off Canada, they are not likely to do well, the corporation says
And the Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance says it's not interested in using the lab-created salmon.
The problem is that the salmon aquaculture industry has some credibility issues. It insisted, for example, that escaped Atlantic salmon could not possibly spawn in B.C. rivers.
Until researchers found the offspring of escaped fish swimming in Island streams.
This is about much more than salmon farms. Researchers have lots of ideas about building new, improved animals.
Scientists at the University of Guelph, for example, hope to get approval for a genetically modified pig. Hogs need phosphorus but are lousy at digesting it. That means farmers pay for supplements and the manure is an environmental problem as the undigested phosphorus is a fertilizer that can promote algae growth in water systems.
The Enviropig, as they call it, cam digest phosphorus more efficiently, solving both problems.
What's striking about the bid to win approval for the AquaAdvantage salmon is the inadequate process. The U.S. FDA has a limited mandate. The broader issues of creating new species need not be addressed.
Trust us, the food companies' scientists say. Everything will be fine.
What could possibly go wrong?
Footnote: The FDA is also undecided on whether the genetically modified salmon would have to be labelled so consumers would know what they were - or weren't buying. The industry opposes labeling as unnecessary.
In the near term, the fish would be identifiable - there aren't many Atlantic salmon that would be labeled 'Product of Panama. But that would be little use if more new species are approved for sale to consumers.
But the idea of creating a new species of salmon in the lab, patenting it, raising the new creature in fish farms and selling it to consumers freaks me out, as the young people used to say.
That's what AquaBounty, a U.S.-based aquaculture company, is proposing. The company has applied for U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval for its genetically modified Atlantic salmon. It even has a name for the new fish - AquaAdvantage(r) Salmon.
AquaBounty likes the fish because it reaches market size in 18 months; normal farmed Atlantic salmon take three years.
The new fish was engineered that way. The company took Atlantic salmon DNA and added a gene from Chinook salmon, which are bigger eaters.
Then it added a gene from the ocean pout, a big eel-like fish. The pout has remarkable tolerance for cold water; its gene triggers the Chinook eating gene to help the new fish pack on weight quickly.
The plan is to produce eggs for the new AquaAdvantage fish at the company's Prince Edward Island plant. They would be flown to Panama where the salmon would be raised in land-based tanks. Then they would make their way back to our tables.
We eat genetically modified foods every day. Most people's cupboards are full of food products - corn, soy, rice - that rely on genetically modified seeds.
Not everyone agrees, but the benefits in increased food production have widely been seen to outweigh the drawbacks.
But the AquaAdvantage(r) Salmon is the first effort to create a new animal, bird or fish as a food source.
As they say in the movies, what could possibly go wrong?
The FDA has given the fish preliminary approval for human consumption. The meat isn't chemically or nutritionally different from Atlantic salmon. But the U.S. agency hasn't yet given approval for the plan.
Critics aren't convinced. Some research, they say, suggests more allergies could be created by genetically modified food.
But the bigger issues are around the impact of the fish on the environment. What if the AquaAdvantage salmon escaped from the fish farms. It's genetically programmed to grow twice as fast as real Atlantic salmon. That could mean it would be twice as effective in gobbling up food sources, leaving the wild fish struggling to compete.
No worries, says AquaBounty. The P.E.I. lab will only create eggs that produce sterile females. The Panama fish farms mean that even if there is an escape, the salmon will die in the warm rivers in that country.
And if, through some bizarre series of circumstances, the ubersalmon ended up in the oceans off Canada, they are not likely to do well, the corporation says
And the Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance says it's not interested in using the lab-created salmon.
The problem is that the salmon aquaculture industry has some credibility issues. It insisted, for example, that escaped Atlantic salmon could not possibly spawn in B.C. rivers.
Until researchers found the offspring of escaped fish swimming in Island streams.
This is about much more than salmon farms. Researchers have lots of ideas about building new, improved animals.
Scientists at the University of Guelph, for example, hope to get approval for a genetically modified pig. Hogs need phosphorus but are lousy at digesting it. That means farmers pay for supplements and the manure is an environmental problem as the undigested phosphorus is a fertilizer that can promote algae growth in water systems.
The Enviropig, as they call it, cam digest phosphorus more efficiently, solving both problems.
What's striking about the bid to win approval for the AquaAdvantage salmon is the inadequate process. The U.S. FDA has a limited mandate. The broader issues of creating new species need not be addressed.
Trust us, the food companies' scientists say. Everything will be fine.
What could possibly go wrong?
Footnote: The FDA is also undecided on whether the genetically modified salmon would have to be labelled so consumers would know what they were - or weren't buying. The industry opposes labeling as unnecessary.
In the near term, the fish would be identifiable - there aren't many Atlantic salmon that would be labeled 'Product of Panama. But that would be little use if more new species are approved for sale to consumers.
Friday, October 08, 2010
NDP’s expulsion of MLA bad deal for voters
Politically, it might make sense to kick MLA Bob Simpson out of the New Democrat caucus.
But it’s another step away from a functioning democratic system that voters can respect.
NDP leader Carole James gave Simpson the boot this week. His immediate offence was some mild observations about the lack of specifics in her speech to the Union of B.C. Municipalities.
The Cariboo North MLA had also been raising questions internally about the party’s direction, lack of clear policies and failure to grab more voter support as the Liberals stumbled.
Simpson didn’t want to be part of the team, James said, as she showed him the door.
Parties need common policies and some internal discipline. Voters are reluctant to support a party that might lurch off in uncharted directions or implode in internal bickering.
But the current fashion calls for much more than that.
MLAs and MPs often seem to have lost the ability to form independent thoughts, ordered to recite the talking points handed out by the leader’s office or say nothing at all.
The people paid to manage such things believe that is the best way to win power. The messages are tightly scripted so politicians don’t say anything that the other side could attack. (And they don’t consider MLAs and MPs quite bright enough to use their own judgment.)
It might be the best way to win power. Just as it might be astute to avoid any serious talk about policies and spend a lot of time bashing the other side.
But while the parties are fighting perpetual campaigns aimed at victory in the next election, they’re losing a more important battle to rebuild public trust in a battered political system.
Simpson was kicked out of the caucus after his brief report on the UBCM convention speeches by provincial and federal politicians appeared on a couple of websites.
He was sharply critical of speeches by Stockwell Day and Premier Gordon Campbell and offered some praise for a speech by B.C. Green party leader Jane Sterk..
And he was not dazzled by James’s’ speech. "The leader of the opposition likewise had little concrete to offer the delegates other than a commitment to be more consultative than the current government and a promise to explore the possibility of revenue sharing with local governments," he wrote. "This is a timely concept which has the potential to address the resource needs of local governments, but the lack of specifics was a disappointment to delegates."
The municipal politicians had real problems grappling with the services they need to provide and the available revenue sources, but didn’t hear anything meaningful from federal and provincial politicians.
"They were simply politicking for the press, not serving the real and immediate needs of UBCM delegates and their constituents," Simpson wrote.
You could expect James would be displeased, even if the comments are accurate. Simpson acknowledged he anticipated a lecture.
Instead, he was given a chance to apologize, declined and was then then kicked out of the caucus. He will sit as an independent.
Simpson’s comments don’t seem that far out of line.
In fact, while that kind of candor might irritate the leader’s office and party brass, it’s useful.
Problems don’t get solved when people are prevented from talking about them. And the best decisions come from a free, informed discussion by all involved.
Maybe those discussions can take place behind closed doors. But there is little evidence they do.
And in any case, it’s also important that citizens see they are taking place. Elected officials are supposed to represent their constituents and raise their concerns - even if the party doesn’t like it.
Instead, the public perception is that they almost always do what they are told. The orders of the leader’s office come before the duty to represent their constituents.
Maybe that’s the way to win elections. But it’s also a sure way to convince voters the system is broken — and that they’re the losers.
Footnote: The issue was a relief to the Liberals, glad the attention was off the HST. It exposed some rifts in the NDP over James’s leadership, but they will likely be short-lived. For all the grumbling, the party’s poll standings have been the best in years. It hardly seems time to get into a leadership debate.
But it’s another step away from a functioning democratic system that voters can respect.
NDP leader Carole James gave Simpson the boot this week. His immediate offence was some mild observations about the lack of specifics in her speech to the Union of B.C. Municipalities.
The Cariboo North MLA had also been raising questions internally about the party’s direction, lack of clear policies and failure to grab more voter support as the Liberals stumbled.
Simpson didn’t want to be part of the team, James said, as she showed him the door.
Parties need common policies and some internal discipline. Voters are reluctant to support a party that might lurch off in uncharted directions or implode in internal bickering.
But the current fashion calls for much more than that.
MLAs and MPs often seem to have lost the ability to form independent thoughts, ordered to recite the talking points handed out by the leader’s office or say nothing at all.
The people paid to manage such things believe that is the best way to win power. The messages are tightly scripted so politicians don’t say anything that the other side could attack. (And they don’t consider MLAs and MPs quite bright enough to use their own judgment.)
It might be the best way to win power. Just as it might be astute to avoid any serious talk about policies and spend a lot of time bashing the other side.
But while the parties are fighting perpetual campaigns aimed at victory in the next election, they’re losing a more important battle to rebuild public trust in a battered political system.
Simpson was kicked out of the caucus after his brief report on the UBCM convention speeches by provincial and federal politicians appeared on a couple of websites.
He was sharply critical of speeches by Stockwell Day and Premier Gordon Campbell and offered some praise for a speech by B.C. Green party leader Jane Sterk..
And he was not dazzled by James’s’ speech. "The leader of the opposition likewise had little concrete to offer the delegates other than a commitment to be more consultative than the current government and a promise to explore the possibility of revenue sharing with local governments," he wrote. "This is a timely concept which has the potential to address the resource needs of local governments, but the lack of specifics was a disappointment to delegates."
The municipal politicians had real problems grappling with the services they need to provide and the available revenue sources, but didn’t hear anything meaningful from federal and provincial politicians.
"They were simply politicking for the press, not serving the real and immediate needs of UBCM delegates and their constituents," Simpson wrote.
You could expect James would be displeased, even if the comments are accurate. Simpson acknowledged he anticipated a lecture.
Instead, he was given a chance to apologize, declined and was then then kicked out of the caucus. He will sit as an independent.
Simpson’s comments don’t seem that far out of line.
In fact, while that kind of candor might irritate the leader’s office and party brass, it’s useful.
Problems don’t get solved when people are prevented from talking about them. And the best decisions come from a free, informed discussion by all involved.
Maybe those discussions can take place behind closed doors. But there is little evidence they do.
And in any case, it’s also important that citizens see they are taking place. Elected officials are supposed to represent their constituents and raise their concerns - even if the party doesn’t like it.
Instead, the public perception is that they almost always do what they are told. The orders of the leader’s office come before the duty to represent their constituents.
Maybe that’s the way to win elections. But it’s also a sure way to convince voters the system is broken — and that they’re the losers.
Footnote: The issue was a relief to the Liberals, glad the attention was off the HST. It exposed some rifts in the NDP over James’s leadership, but they will likely be short-lived. For all the grumbling, the party’s poll standings have been the best in years. It hardly seems time to get into a leadership debate.
Bob Simpson's expulsion and group home closures
Two useful pieces from the Times Colonist today.
An editorial suggests it might be better for democracy if more MLAs and MPs emulated Bob Simpson and were more candid in their comments. It might make political sense to muzzle MLAs and encourage them to repeat scripted talking points rather than sharing their own views or raising the concerns of their constituents, just as it might make political sense for a party in opposition to avoid any clear policy positions.
But in pursuing tactics that lead to power, what if the parties steadily destroying public confidence in the political system.
And in a column, Jody Paterson looks at cuts to services and group home closures that are hammering the developmentally disabled and their families.
An editorial suggests it might be better for democracy if more MLAs and MPs emulated Bob Simpson and were more candid in their comments. It might make political sense to muzzle MLAs and encourage them to repeat scripted talking points rather than sharing their own views or raising the concerns of their constituents, just as it might make political sense for a party in opposition to avoid any clear policy positions.
But in pursuing tactics that lead to power, what if the parties steadily destroying public confidence in the political system.
And in a column, Jody Paterson looks at cuts to services and group home closures that are hammering the developmentally disabled and their families.
Wednesday, October 06, 2010
The special prosecutor, Oppal and the perception of bias
OK, there are differences in the two cases.
But Terry Robertson is in trouble with the law society because he accepted an appointment as special prosecutor to look into allegations of irregularities and election law violations in Kash Heed's campaign without revealing his law firm had donated to the campaign. (Story here.)
By not disclosing the potential conflict, Robertson "failed to meet the expected standard that requires a lawyer to disclose to his client any previous connection to the parties in a matter," the society found.
The failure to disclose is the issue. But the underlying concern is that the government would have decided that Robertson could be seen to be biased and wouldn't have been appointed.
Which leads, again, to the appointment of Wally Oppal to head the inquiry into the Pickton investigation and the missing women investigation.
If a law firm donation to a candidate is seen to raise a potential conflict of interest, how can four years as a Liberal cabinet minister and public comments supporting the police investigation and questioning the need for an inquiry not raise the perception of bias?
(The Vancouver Sun backed Oppal's appointment in an editorial today. The fact that it took 560 words to come up with a lukewarm endorsement - how else to consider the phrase "Based on what we know, there is no reason to believe Oppal has an untenable conflict of interest because of his foray into partisan politics" - suggests the appointment remains questionable.)
But Terry Robertson is in trouble with the law society because he accepted an appointment as special prosecutor to look into allegations of irregularities and election law violations in Kash Heed's campaign without revealing his law firm had donated to the campaign. (Story here.)
By not disclosing the potential conflict, Robertson "failed to meet the expected standard that requires a lawyer to disclose to his client any previous connection to the parties in a matter," the society found.
The failure to disclose is the issue. But the underlying concern is that the government would have decided that Robertson could be seen to be biased and wouldn't have been appointed.
Which leads, again, to the appointment of Wally Oppal to head the inquiry into the Pickton investigation and the missing women investigation.
If a law firm donation to a candidate is seen to raise a potential conflict of interest, how can four years as a Liberal cabinet minister and public comments supporting the police investigation and questioning the need for an inquiry not raise the perception of bias?
(The Vancouver Sun backed Oppal's appointment in an editorial today. The fact that it took 560 words to come up with a lukewarm endorsement - how else to consider the phrase "Based on what we know, there is no reason to believe Oppal has an untenable conflict of interest because of his foray into partisan politics" - suggests the appointment remains questionable.)
Tuesday, October 05, 2010
The media, Vander Zalm and the HST-cut rumours
What we're supposed to offer, those of us in Sarah Palin's "lamestream media," is quality assurance.
A wild-eyed blogger - as opposed to a steely-eyed one - might report an unsubstantiated claim the premier was about to announce a cut in the HST rate, for example.
But professional reporters would carefully check out the rumour. If the sources were shaky or non-existent, the story wouldn't make it - or at least it would make it clear that the information was one step above coffee-shop gossip. (Though really, why report something one step above gossip? Not reporting seems the best option.)
That quality assurance wobbled last week. A little before midnight last Wednesday, Bill Vander Zalm and the Fight HST forces issued a press released headlined "Rumours abound Campbell will reduce HST rate on Friday."
That's when the premier was to address the Union of B.C. Municipalities. The Vander Zalm release cited "reliable sources" who also confirmed Campbell would announce the HST referendum would be held earlier than next September.
The CBC and CTV bit with news stories Thursday. The CBC report noted the premier's office called the rumours "completely untrue." CTV reports had similar denials and a weird quote from Vander Zalm that "sometimes these very reliable sources may not be that reliable."
But the chance of an HST rate cut was reported seriously based solely on Vander Zalm's e-mailed news release.
Well, not solely. The Province's clever columnist Mike Smyth, in a piece written before Vander Zalm dropped his bomb, asked "could Gordon Campbell announce a reduction in the harmonized sales tax at the Union of B.C. Municipalities Convention this week?" And CBC reporters said the capital was buzzing with rumours Campbell would announce the provincial share of the HST would be reduced from seven to six per cent.
I'm sure rumours were buzzing. But that could mean one person was spreading the same rumour to anyone who would listen, who would then say, yeah, I heard that too.
Campbell didn't announce a reduction in the HST. Finance Minister Colin Hansen said Vander Zalm must be hearing voices.
Over at pacificgazette.blogspot.com, perhaps the most consistently interesting B.C. blog, the Gazetter believes the evidence points to some successful media manipulation.
The Liberal government floated the rumour of a cut in the HST to draw attention to Campbell's speech, the theory goes, and Vander Zalm and company spread the rumour of an earlier vote on the HST to make mischief.
I expect he gives almost everyone involved too much credit. The reports of an HST rate cut didn't help the Liberals. Anything Campbell had to offer at UBCM - and he didn't have much - would seem anticlimactic after the rumours of big announcements.
And Vander Zalm ended up looking goofy - the man whose reliable sources were not.
Vander Zalm said it wasn't his problem if the media chose to report his claims.
Which does seem like the issue in all this. As a young reporter, in the last days of typewriters, I learned from Harold Evan's five-book series on newspapering and All the President's Men, the Woodward-Bernstein book on Watergate.
Two sources, was the rule. Two credible people, in a position to know, who could vouch for the accuracy of the information to be reported.
None of this is simple. Vander Zalm is a public figure right now; if he says a big tax change is coming, should the media refuse to report that?
If they do, they can be called irresponsible. If they don't, they're keeping information from the people.
What we should bring to the relationship with readers, viewers and listeners, are judgment, experience and intelligence.
I can't discern any guiding intelligence behind the HST rumours.
But I also don't think it was a great week for the paid media workers.
Footnote: Two other points. As the Gazetteer notes, the focus on the rumour came at the expense of other reporting, including on StatsCan numbers that showed the Canadian economy shrank in July in part because of the HST's impact.
And why the rush to report on speculation about the speech, when by the next day everyone would know exactly what Campbell said.
A wild-eyed blogger - as opposed to a steely-eyed one - might report an unsubstantiated claim the premier was about to announce a cut in the HST rate, for example.
But professional reporters would carefully check out the rumour. If the sources were shaky or non-existent, the story wouldn't make it - or at least it would make it clear that the information was one step above coffee-shop gossip. (Though really, why report something one step above gossip? Not reporting seems the best option.)
That quality assurance wobbled last week. A little before midnight last Wednesday, Bill Vander Zalm and the Fight HST forces issued a press released headlined "Rumours abound Campbell will reduce HST rate on Friday."
That's when the premier was to address the Union of B.C. Municipalities. The Vander Zalm release cited "reliable sources" who also confirmed Campbell would announce the HST referendum would be held earlier than next September.
The CBC and CTV bit with news stories Thursday. The CBC report noted the premier's office called the rumours "completely untrue." CTV reports had similar denials and a weird quote from Vander Zalm that "sometimes these very reliable sources may not be that reliable."
But the chance of an HST rate cut was reported seriously based solely on Vander Zalm's e-mailed news release.
Well, not solely. The Province's clever columnist Mike Smyth, in a piece written before Vander Zalm dropped his bomb, asked "could Gordon Campbell announce a reduction in the harmonized sales tax at the Union of B.C. Municipalities Convention this week?" And CBC reporters said the capital was buzzing with rumours Campbell would announce the provincial share of the HST would be reduced from seven to six per cent.
I'm sure rumours were buzzing. But that could mean one person was spreading the same rumour to anyone who would listen, who would then say, yeah, I heard that too.
Campbell didn't announce a reduction in the HST. Finance Minister Colin Hansen said Vander Zalm must be hearing voices.
Over at pacificgazette.blogspot.com, perhaps the most consistently interesting B.C. blog, the Gazetter believes the evidence points to some successful media manipulation.
The Liberal government floated the rumour of a cut in the HST to draw attention to Campbell's speech, the theory goes, and Vander Zalm and company spread the rumour of an earlier vote on the HST to make mischief.
I expect he gives almost everyone involved too much credit. The reports of an HST rate cut didn't help the Liberals. Anything Campbell had to offer at UBCM - and he didn't have much - would seem anticlimactic after the rumours of big announcements.
And Vander Zalm ended up looking goofy - the man whose reliable sources were not.
Vander Zalm said it wasn't his problem if the media chose to report his claims.
Which does seem like the issue in all this. As a young reporter, in the last days of typewriters, I learned from Harold Evan's five-book series on newspapering and All the President's Men, the Woodward-Bernstein book on Watergate.
Two sources, was the rule. Two credible people, in a position to know, who could vouch for the accuracy of the information to be reported.
None of this is simple. Vander Zalm is a public figure right now; if he says a big tax change is coming, should the media refuse to report that?
If they do, they can be called irresponsible. If they don't, they're keeping information from the people.
What we should bring to the relationship with readers, viewers and listeners, are judgment, experience and intelligence.
I can't discern any guiding intelligence behind the HST rumours.
But I also don't think it was a great week for the paid media workers.
Footnote: Two other points. As the Gazetteer notes, the focus on the rumour came at the expense of other reporting, including on StatsCan numbers that showed the Canadian economy shrank in July in part because of the HST's impact.
And why the rush to report on speculation about the speech, when by the next day everyone would know exactly what Campbell said.
Sunday, October 03, 2010
An important on-the-ground perspective from Afghanistan
"After nine years of effort in the country, and several years of intense effort in Kandahar City and the surrounding districts, there is no substantial progress that we can claim for the region. Violence and insecurity are at record levels. The Taliban move and strike throughout most of the country at will. Public confidence in the Karzai regime and NATO is near zero...
"Yes, we should be commended for taking on the part of Afghanistan known to be the toughest. But it must also be recognized that we have failed, and we need to examine whether the failure was in our approach, in the strategies and tactics applied to the mission -- or was success in Afghanistan never even possible? If the latter, then tough questions must be asked of our military and political leadership, about their ability to identify the point when it became apparent that this cause was lost."
Peter Dimitroff is a security advisor to NGOs in Kandahar and has worked in the country for years. His perspective is that we have spent billions and sacrificed lives while accomplishing little or nothing of lasting value.
And as government, media and society we've failed to even count the costs or assess whether this made sense.
It's an important piece in the Times Colonist today.
"Yes, we should be commended for taking on the part of Afghanistan known to be the toughest. But it must also be recognized that we have failed, and we need to examine whether the failure was in our approach, in the strategies and tactics applied to the mission -- or was success in Afghanistan never even possible? If the latter, then tough questions must be asked of our military and political leadership, about their ability to identify the point when it became apparent that this cause was lost."
Peter Dimitroff is a security advisor to NGOs in Kandahar and has worked in the country for years. His perspective is that we have spent billions and sacrificed lives while accomplishing little or nothing of lasting value.
And as government, media and society we've failed to even count the costs or assess whether this made sense.
It's an important piece in the Times Colonist today.
Saturday, October 02, 2010
You've read the words, now see the pictures
If you're out and about in Victoria, consider stopping in at 2% Jazz Coffee, where I have a bunch of pictures on the wall.
Last year I set out to do 45 works on paper in 90 days, mostly as a way to get down to making art and also because the commitment discouraged over-thinking. I used moments in my life as topics.
The results - or most of them - are on the wall at 2621 Douglas (beside the Times Colonist).
Take a look. And try the great coffee and food.
Last year I set out to do 45 works on paper in 90 days, mostly as a way to get down to making art and also because the commitment discouraged over-thinking. I used moments in my life as topics.
The results - or most of them - are on the wall at 2621 Douglas (beside the Times Colonist).
Take a look. And try the great coffee and food.
Oppal's appointment says, once again, that the missing and murdered women don't matter
Times Colonist reporter Lindsay Kines, who has been reporting on the missing women case long before police and politicians were even acknowledging women were disappearing in Vancouver, explains why Wally Oppal's appointment is another indication that they are still seen as disposable people in a column here.
Friday, October 01, 2010
Campbell has little new for UBCM
The Union of B.C. Municipalities has evolved into the big political event of the year.
And the just-concluded gathering in Whistler was suitably weird, as you would expect in these strange times.
The meetings bring together mayors, councillors, provincial politicians, lobbyists and a few reporters, who swirl around a convention centre and bars and restaurants.
There are speeches and private meetings and votes on resolutions covering everything from whether to kill urban deer to the risks of offshore tanker traffic.
The Liberals put a lot of effort into preparing for UBCM. The premier traditionally speaks on the last day; Gordon Campbell generally has launched some now initiative or announced some politically popular measure.
Ministers are kept hopping - to a tight script - through the event.
That turned out badly for Murray Coell. The Saanich-Gulf Island MLA is B.C.'s low-profile labour minister. He spoke to the convention Wednesday and talked about increasing the minimum wage, frozen at $8 since 2002.
The government had focused on tax cuts and other "levers" to put more money into low-income earners' pockets rather than a minimum-wage increase, he said.
"But we are getting close to, I would say, running out of levers that we can use, so it's something we're definitely going to have a look at in the future," Coell said.
That heartened advocates for low-income workers, who have watched as B.C.'s minimum wage fell to the lowest in the country during the eight-year freeze. (While the premier's pay increased by more than 50 per cent.)
But the next day the minister was in full retreat. By "in the future," he meant someday, Coell said. For now, the lowest minimum wage in Canada is just fine. (Someone likely got yelled at about all this. Ministers' comments are generally crafted to sound meaningful without actually committing to anything. The initial minimum wage comments actually hinted at action, a mistake.)
Campbell's speech was foreshadowed by another weird development. Just before midnight Wednesday, Bill Vander Zalm and the Fight HST people put out a news release citing "reliable sources" and saying Campbell would announce a reduction in the harmonized sales tax in his speech and an earlier referendum on the tax.
The news release got some media coverage, although it's hard to see how Vander Zalm could have inside information from leak-resistant Liberals.
Finance Minister Colin Hansen quickly denied the rumour. The agreement with Ottawa fixes the HST rate until 2012, he said, coming close to calling Vander Zalm crazy.
The stunt made the Fight HST people look flaky. But it also undermined Campbell's speech before he said a word.
Whatever he promised, it would be kind of anticlimactic after reports - ill-founded or not - that he'd be announcing a cut in the HST.
As it turned out, Campbell didn't have much new to offer.
There was $3 million to help communities hit by the pine beetle disaster try to diversify their economies and a renewed commitment to transit projects. Parks will get extra funding next year and communities that hose the B.C. Games will get more money. The province will pick up the tab for criminal record checks for volunteers.
There will be some sort of big tourism marketing effort in the future.
About half the speech was devoted to reminiscing about the Olympics and looking ahead to the HST referendum.
Campbell likened the introduction of the HST to a bad figure skating routine, continuing his Olympic theme.
But that section of the speech was a tone-deaf performance. There was no apology or indication that serious harm had been done to political life. The imposition of a new tax that angered so many was the subject of a series of jokes.
Campbell fared better in making the argument the referendum should be about the tax policy itself and the benefits and costs.
That's going to be a Liberal theme for the next 12 months.
Footnote: Campbell offered strong support for Taseko's Prosperity gold mine project. It was approved after a provincial environmental assessment, but a federal review found significant problems, including the destruction of a lake and conflicts with native rights. The federal cabinet has yet to make a decision.
And the just-concluded gathering in Whistler was suitably weird, as you would expect in these strange times.
The meetings bring together mayors, councillors, provincial politicians, lobbyists and a few reporters, who swirl around a convention centre and bars and restaurants.
There are speeches and private meetings and votes on resolutions covering everything from whether to kill urban deer to the risks of offshore tanker traffic.
The Liberals put a lot of effort into preparing for UBCM. The premier traditionally speaks on the last day; Gordon Campbell generally has launched some now initiative or announced some politically popular measure.
Ministers are kept hopping - to a tight script - through the event.
That turned out badly for Murray Coell. The Saanich-Gulf Island MLA is B.C.'s low-profile labour minister. He spoke to the convention Wednesday and talked about increasing the minimum wage, frozen at $8 since 2002.
The government had focused on tax cuts and other "levers" to put more money into low-income earners' pockets rather than a minimum-wage increase, he said.
"But we are getting close to, I would say, running out of levers that we can use, so it's something we're definitely going to have a look at in the future," Coell said.
That heartened advocates for low-income workers, who have watched as B.C.'s minimum wage fell to the lowest in the country during the eight-year freeze. (While the premier's pay increased by more than 50 per cent.)
But the next day the minister was in full retreat. By "in the future," he meant someday, Coell said. For now, the lowest minimum wage in Canada is just fine. (Someone likely got yelled at about all this. Ministers' comments are generally crafted to sound meaningful without actually committing to anything. The initial minimum wage comments actually hinted at action, a mistake.)
Campbell's speech was foreshadowed by another weird development. Just before midnight Wednesday, Bill Vander Zalm and the Fight HST people put out a news release citing "reliable sources" and saying Campbell would announce a reduction in the harmonized sales tax in his speech and an earlier referendum on the tax.
The news release got some media coverage, although it's hard to see how Vander Zalm could have inside information from leak-resistant Liberals.
Finance Minister Colin Hansen quickly denied the rumour. The agreement with Ottawa fixes the HST rate until 2012, he said, coming close to calling Vander Zalm crazy.
The stunt made the Fight HST people look flaky. But it also undermined Campbell's speech before he said a word.
Whatever he promised, it would be kind of anticlimactic after reports - ill-founded or not - that he'd be announcing a cut in the HST.
As it turned out, Campbell didn't have much new to offer.
There was $3 million to help communities hit by the pine beetle disaster try to diversify their economies and a renewed commitment to transit projects. Parks will get extra funding next year and communities that hose the B.C. Games will get more money. The province will pick up the tab for criminal record checks for volunteers.
There will be some sort of big tourism marketing effort in the future.
About half the speech was devoted to reminiscing about the Olympics and looking ahead to the HST referendum.
Campbell likened the introduction of the HST to a bad figure skating routine, continuing his Olympic theme.
But that section of the speech was a tone-deaf performance. There was no apology or indication that serious harm had been done to political life. The imposition of a new tax that angered so many was the subject of a series of jokes.
Campbell fared better in making the argument the referendum should be about the tax policy itself and the benefits and costs.
That's going to be a Liberal theme for the next 12 months.
Footnote: Campbell offered strong support for Taseko's Prosperity gold mine project. It was approved after a provincial environmental assessment, but a federal review found significant problems, including the destruction of a lake and conflicts with native rights. The federal cabinet has yet to make a decision.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Why the ruling on prostitution laws matters
The Ontario Superior Court has ruled that laws around the sex trade targeting soliciting, bawdy houses and living off the avails are unconstitutional. They create added dangers for people - mostly women - in prostitution business, which is legal in Canada, the court found. And they have no offsetting broader public benefits.
Jody Paterson spent several years with PEERS, a non-profit supporting sex workers in Victoria. She set out why this is important in a fine column in the Times Colonist today.
Jody Paterson spent several years with PEERS, a non-profit supporting sex workers in Victoria. She set out why this is important in a fine column in the Times Colonist today.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Oppal a wretched choice for Pickton inquiry
The appointment of Wally Oppal to head the Pickton inquiry demonstrates this government's combination of arrogance and ineptitude.
Attorney General Mike de Jong announced details of the inquiry into the Pickton murders and the missing women this week.
Its excessively narrow mandate includes looking at the police investigation and the Crown's decision to stay attempted murder and other charges against Pickton in 1998.
The inquiry can also make recommendations for the way future missing women's investigations and homicide cases when multiple police departments are handled.
But not, however, on the broader issue of regionalized policing.
Oppal's appointment shows remarkably bad judgment.
He was a Liberal cabinet minister until he was defeated in last year's election. He supported the party's policies, including its rejection of the need for better co-ordinated policing in the Lower Mainland.
He worked with ministers who were in power as the Pickton investigation unfolded. As a cabinet minister, Oppal publicly rejected the idea that racism played a role in the missing women investigation, although many of Pickton's victims were aboriginal. As attorney general, he waged a legal battle to keep evidence from the inquiry into the death of Frank Paul, a native man who died after Vancouver police left him in an alley.
The appointment creates an instant and well-founded perception of bias.
De Jong brushed off the concerns. Oppal is a good man and independent by nature, he said. He's a former judge and conducted another on policing in 1994. So we picked him.
That's all fine. But it's also irrelevant.
Oppal's most recent job was serving as de Jong's predecessor as Liberal attorney general (with an unremarkable record).
The appearance of conflict of interest in his appointment is enough to undermine the inquiry's independence and credibility.
It is baffling how the government could not see - or not care - that Oppal's appointment would be greeted with suspicion.
The inquiry's narrow mandate is also a serious problem.
A Vancouver Police Department internal review of the Pickton investigation found serious problems within the department. But it also concluded that Pickton was able to keep on killing long after he should have been caught because of the fragmented policing structure on the Lower Mainland. The Vancouver police and RCMP detachments failed to share information or co-operate. The Mounties refused a request for a combined investigation. And the women kept dying.
But Oppal isn't allowed to look at the option of regional policing.
He's also not allowed to look at a wide range of other factors that might have helped Pickton - and others like him - kill women.
His victims were women on the margins. Many were aboriginal, poor, in the sex trade or addicted. Did that affect the police response? Did our laws around prostitution serve these women up as victims?
The inquiry won't answer those questions.
Admittedly, those issues would be difficult to deal with in a focused inquiry.
But the government's alternate plan for dealing with them is fuzzy. De Jong said he hoped the Native Women Association of Canada will hold a national conference in B.C. in 2011 on the broader concerns.
It appears to be an inadequate response to a serious problem.
De Jong doesn't appear to have consulted with families of the victims or the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, which has sought an inquiry for years, on the terms of the inquiry or Oppal's appointment.
The government has the ultimate responsibility. But not consulting shows, again, arrogance and an unwillingness to consider that others might have useful contributions.
What can the Liberals be thinking?
It would seem they either didn't realize that naming Oppal - a Liberal cabinet minister not that long ago - to head an "independent" inquiry would be viewed with suspicion.
Or that they didn't care what the public thought.
We need to know how Pickton could kill so easily and for so long. We need to learn from this horrible case.
And the government has made a lousy effort to accomplish those goals.
Footnote: De Jong also said he would not delay negotiations on a new long-term contract with the RCMP - expected to be concluded next year - until Oppal reports. (His deadline is Dec, 31, 2011.) That suggest any recommendations on changes to policing or for mandated improved co-operation between RCMP detachments and municipal forces will be ignored.
Attorney General Mike de Jong announced details of the inquiry into the Pickton murders and the missing women this week.
Its excessively narrow mandate includes looking at the police investigation and the Crown's decision to stay attempted murder and other charges against Pickton in 1998.
The inquiry can also make recommendations for the way future missing women's investigations and homicide cases when multiple police departments are handled.
But not, however, on the broader issue of regionalized policing.
Oppal's appointment shows remarkably bad judgment.
He was a Liberal cabinet minister until he was defeated in last year's election. He supported the party's policies, including its rejection of the need for better co-ordinated policing in the Lower Mainland.
He worked with ministers who were in power as the Pickton investigation unfolded. As a cabinet minister, Oppal publicly rejected the idea that racism played a role in the missing women investigation, although many of Pickton's victims were aboriginal. As attorney general, he waged a legal battle to keep evidence from the inquiry into the death of Frank Paul, a native man who died after Vancouver police left him in an alley.
The appointment creates an instant and well-founded perception of bias.
De Jong brushed off the concerns. Oppal is a good man and independent by nature, he said. He's a former judge and conducted another on policing in 1994. So we picked him.
That's all fine. But it's also irrelevant.
Oppal's most recent job was serving as de Jong's predecessor as Liberal attorney general (with an unremarkable record).
The appearance of conflict of interest in his appointment is enough to undermine the inquiry's independence and credibility.
It is baffling how the government could not see - or not care - that Oppal's appointment would be greeted with suspicion.
The inquiry's narrow mandate is also a serious problem.
A Vancouver Police Department internal review of the Pickton investigation found serious problems within the department. But it also concluded that Pickton was able to keep on killing long after he should have been caught because of the fragmented policing structure on the Lower Mainland. The Vancouver police and RCMP detachments failed to share information or co-operate. The Mounties refused a request for a combined investigation. And the women kept dying.
But Oppal isn't allowed to look at the option of regional policing.
He's also not allowed to look at a wide range of other factors that might have helped Pickton - and others like him - kill women.
His victims were women on the margins. Many were aboriginal, poor, in the sex trade or addicted. Did that affect the police response? Did our laws around prostitution serve these women up as victims?
The inquiry won't answer those questions.
Admittedly, those issues would be difficult to deal with in a focused inquiry.
But the government's alternate plan for dealing with them is fuzzy. De Jong said he hoped the Native Women Association of Canada will hold a national conference in B.C. in 2011 on the broader concerns.
It appears to be an inadequate response to a serious problem.
De Jong doesn't appear to have consulted with families of the victims or the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, which has sought an inquiry for years, on the terms of the inquiry or Oppal's appointment.
The government has the ultimate responsibility. But not consulting shows, again, arrogance and an unwillingness to consider that others might have useful contributions.
What can the Liberals be thinking?
It would seem they either didn't realize that naming Oppal - a Liberal cabinet minister not that long ago - to head an "independent" inquiry would be viewed with suspicion.
Or that they didn't care what the public thought.
We need to know how Pickton could kill so easily and for so long. We need to learn from this horrible case.
And the government has made a lousy effort to accomplish those goals.
Footnote: De Jong also said he would not delay negotiations on a new long-term contract with the RCMP - expected to be concluded next year - until Oppal reports. (His deadline is Dec, 31, 2011.) That suggest any recommendations on changes to policing or for mandated improved co-operation between RCMP detachments and municipal forces will be ignored.
Friday, September 24, 2010
Bringing market forces into the hospital
I headed into the local hospital for a quick day treatment in a clinic last week.
Two doctors were waiting to see a cluster of us. But the nurse who usually worked that clinic room was on holidays, which had been scheduled for some time.
The hospital hadn't arranged a replacement nurse. One doctor decided he couldn't work without nurse support. So half the patients were sent home to be scheduled for an appointment in another month or two.
That's a good example of the kind of problem the government hopes to fix with "patient-focused funding."
It makes sense. Now, the Health Ministry sets a budget and provides funds for the health authority. The authority allocates the money to different services, including hospitals, and decides how many surgeries, for example, it can do with the cash.
So there are no consequences for cancelling treatments because someone in the hospital didn't arrange a replacement nurse. The patients still have to come back. The hospital doesn't lose any funding.
Under patient-focused funding, that changes. The government holds back more of the block funding it once sent to health authorities. Hospitals and health authorities get paid a set amount per treatment on a per-patient basis.
Under that approach, the failure to get a nurse would be costly. Those cancelled treatments would mean lost revenue. So there would be an incentive to solve the problem.
Just as there would be an incentive to do things faster and at less cost, bringing in more revenue.
A hospital might decide to set up two adjacent operating rooms to do the same procedure, for example. While one patient is being operated on, another can be prepped for surgery. As soon as they're done, the teams switch places and the process starts again.
That would mean lower costs per patient. If the government were paying a set fee, the hospital or authority would have extra money for other projects.
It could even ask hospitals to bid for right to provide hip surgeries, for example, and pick the most cost-efficient.
There are catches, of course. The most obvious is the risk that corners will be cut. The B.C. Medical Association supports the idea, but wants safeguards to make sure cheap and fast doesn't take priority over patients' health and safety.
And the incentives, so far, aren't individual. It's hard to say if the person who didn't line up a replacement nurse would be motivated to act differently by the promise that the hospital would get more money as a result.
The bigger problem is likely that there are no real rewards for success.
The government is still rationing services. So even if a hospital is brilliant at some surgery, getting better results at a much lower cost, the Health Ministry will tell it to stop when the quota is done for the year.
Everyone involved can do great work, with no real reward.
There are solutions. The government, for example, could provide guarantees to medical service plan clients. Hip surgery in six months, or we fly to you to Seattle for the operation and pick up all the bills. Hospitals would know it was worth getting really good at hip replacement, because the ministry wouldn't want to fly patients to the U.S.
The whole initiative is just getting going. The government has set up a Health Services Purchasing Organization, headed by Dr. Les Vertesi (who is also Gordon Campbell's brother-in-law) to manage the process and is looking to have a large share of health spending managed this way.
By next year, the government hopes about $170 million will be taken out of health authority budgets to be spent by the purchasing organization.
There is another issue in all this, large enough to warrant a second column. Vertesi has been a strong advocate of a allowing a private health care alternative for people who can pay more for speedier treatment. And the patient-focused funding, Health Minister Kevin Falcon, could be used to buy services from private clinics.
That's not necessarily a bad thing. But it does raise some serious questions, which I will look at in a future column.
Footnote: Falcon announced an extra $23 million in "patient-focused funding" for tests and surgeries. Up to 33,000 patients would benefit, he said. Which means the $800,000 the government spent on the pro-HST flyer it tossed in the garbage would have helped 1,150 patients on waiting lists.
Two doctors were waiting to see a cluster of us. But the nurse who usually worked that clinic room was on holidays, which had been scheduled for some time.
The hospital hadn't arranged a replacement nurse. One doctor decided he couldn't work without nurse support. So half the patients were sent home to be scheduled for an appointment in another month or two.
That's a good example of the kind of problem the government hopes to fix with "patient-focused funding."
It makes sense. Now, the Health Ministry sets a budget and provides funds for the health authority. The authority allocates the money to different services, including hospitals, and decides how many surgeries, for example, it can do with the cash.
So there are no consequences for cancelling treatments because someone in the hospital didn't arrange a replacement nurse. The patients still have to come back. The hospital doesn't lose any funding.
Under patient-focused funding, that changes. The government holds back more of the block funding it once sent to health authorities. Hospitals and health authorities get paid a set amount per treatment on a per-patient basis.
Under that approach, the failure to get a nurse would be costly. Those cancelled treatments would mean lost revenue. So there would be an incentive to solve the problem.
Just as there would be an incentive to do things faster and at less cost, bringing in more revenue.
A hospital might decide to set up two adjacent operating rooms to do the same procedure, for example. While one patient is being operated on, another can be prepped for surgery. As soon as they're done, the teams switch places and the process starts again.
That would mean lower costs per patient. If the government were paying a set fee, the hospital or authority would have extra money for other projects.
It could even ask hospitals to bid for right to provide hip surgeries, for example, and pick the most cost-efficient.
There are catches, of course. The most obvious is the risk that corners will be cut. The B.C. Medical Association supports the idea, but wants safeguards to make sure cheap and fast doesn't take priority over patients' health and safety.
And the incentives, so far, aren't individual. It's hard to say if the person who didn't line up a replacement nurse would be motivated to act differently by the promise that the hospital would get more money as a result.
The bigger problem is likely that there are no real rewards for success.
The government is still rationing services. So even if a hospital is brilliant at some surgery, getting better results at a much lower cost, the Health Ministry will tell it to stop when the quota is done for the year.
Everyone involved can do great work, with no real reward.
There are solutions. The government, for example, could provide guarantees to medical service plan clients. Hip surgery in six months, or we fly to you to Seattle for the operation and pick up all the bills. Hospitals would know it was worth getting really good at hip replacement, because the ministry wouldn't want to fly patients to the U.S.
The whole initiative is just getting going. The government has set up a Health Services Purchasing Organization, headed by Dr. Les Vertesi (who is also Gordon Campbell's brother-in-law) to manage the process and is looking to have a large share of health spending managed this way.
By next year, the government hopes about $170 million will be taken out of health authority budgets to be spent by the purchasing organization.
There is another issue in all this, large enough to warrant a second column. Vertesi has been a strong advocate of a allowing a private health care alternative for people who can pay more for speedier treatment. And the patient-focused funding, Health Minister Kevin Falcon, could be used to buy services from private clinics.
That's not necessarily a bad thing. But it does raise some serious questions, which I will look at in a future column.
Footnote: Falcon announced an extra $23 million in "patient-focused funding" for tests and surgeries. Up to 33,000 patients would benefit, he said. Which means the $800,000 the government spent on the pro-HST flyer it tossed in the garbage would have helped 1,150 patients on waiting lists.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Honouring Sindi Hawkins
Former Liberal MLA Sindi Hawkins died today after a long battle with cancer, which she turned into an opportunity to raise awareness and money for cancer research and treatment.
Hawkins was a genuine, nice, funny, smart person. She greeted everyone - Liberals, New Democrats, journalists, janitors - with warmth and interest and respect.
She was a sharp and effective health critic when the Liberals were in opposition. But not a jerk or a critic striving for cheap points. She raised real concerns.
After the 2001 election, a former New Democrat staffer noted, when the Liberals had a 77-2 majority and many of the victors were unkind, Hawkins was unfailingly polite and courteous to the opposition. After her first illness, her family cooked an Indian feast and served it at the legislature to thank the staff and politicians from all parties and journalists who had been rooting for her. It was a fine day
Her death is a loss. And it's a sad reminder that political life could be so much better. Sindi Hawkins showed politicians don't have to be foolishly partisan or constantly looking to score points. She showed you can disagree on policy while still respecting the person on the other side of the issue.
Imagine if all MLAs decided to honour Sindi Hawkins by emulating her grace, kindness, courtesy and commitment to the broad public good each time they stepped through the doors of the chamber.
Hawkins was a genuine, nice, funny, smart person. She greeted everyone - Liberals, New Democrats, journalists, janitors - with warmth and interest and respect.
She was a sharp and effective health critic when the Liberals were in opposition. But not a jerk or a critic striving for cheap points. She raised real concerns.
After the 2001 election, a former New Democrat staffer noted, when the Liberals had a 77-2 majority and many of the victors were unkind, Hawkins was unfailingly polite and courteous to the opposition. After her first illness, her family cooked an Indian feast and served it at the legislature to thank the staff and politicians from all parties and journalists who had been rooting for her. It was a fine day
Her death is a loss. And it's a sad reminder that political life could be so much better. Sindi Hawkins showed politicians don't have to be foolishly partisan or constantly looking to score points. She showed you can disagree on policy while still respecting the person on the other side of the issue.
Imagine if all MLAs decided to honour Sindi Hawkins by emulating her grace, kindness, courtesy and commitment to the broad public good each time they stepped through the doors of the chamber.
When did the government really decide to sell B.C. rail?
Interesting post (as is often the case) at pacificgazette.blogspot.com on the timing of the decision to sell B.C. Rail and, more specifically, on conflicts in the government's claims.
Then transportation minister Judith Reid insisted in the summer of 2002 that B.C. Rail would not be sold or privatized. But, pacificgazette notes here, former MLA Paul Nettleton says Gordon Campbell told him and the other Prince George MPs in February 2002 that the promise to maintain the railways as a Crown corporation would be broken.
Which is consistent with evidence at the B.C. rail corruption trial today that in January 2002 the Crown corporation executives were given rich severance agreements to kick in if the railway was sold.
Then transportation minister Judith Reid insisted in the summer of 2002 that B.C. Rail would not be sold or privatized. But, pacificgazette notes here, former MLA Paul Nettleton says Gordon Campbell told him and the other Prince George MPs in February 2002 that the promise to maintain the railways as a Crown corporation would be broken.
Which is consistent with evidence at the B.C. rail corruption trial today that in January 2002 the Crown corporation executives were given rich severance agreements to kick in if the railway was sold.
How Campbell can ease recall's sting
Recall campaigns are ugly.
The goal is to convince voters to fire an MLA. So campaigners talk about the rotten, incompetent person representing the voters in Victoria.
And it looks like we're into recall season.
Bill Vander Zalm and the Fight-HST crowd gave Gordon Campbell a choice this week.
Accept their proposals for how and when the HST referendum would be conducted or face three recall campaigns against Liberal MLAs in January, with an extra campaign launched every month after that.
It was all pretty clever. Vander Zalm even announced a Survivor-style competition for those ridings hoping to be the first to launch recall campaigns. The challenge is to sign up canvassers over the next eight weeks; ridings with the most participants launch recall campaigns first.
Even the five conditions the anti-HST campaigners set were crafted to place Campbell in a tight corner.
Two of the demands - to make the initiative binding and require only a simple majority vote to kill the tax - had already been accepted by Campbell last week in a surprise announcement. (The initiative legislation says the threshold is 50 per cent of all eligible voters, not just those who show up at the pools. Even then, he result isn't binding.)
The other three demands were tougher.
The Fight-HST People wanted the referendum held under some legally binding framework, like the Referendum Act, with spending limits and other safeguards.
They wanted the question to be drafted by Elections BC and approved by "both the government and Fight HST."
And they wanted the referendum held this year.
Pushy. But except for the timing, Fight HST isn't really out of line. Don't forget, the group succeeded in a petition process which was supposed to result in a vote next September on the bill to kill the HST that they had drafted. That's the law.
Now Campbell appears to be making up his own rules.
A little compromise and consensus is in order.
The Liberals certainly won't accept a vote this year. They hope time will ease the anger over the way the HST was introduced and let them convince people the tax is a good thing.
And they want the advantage of being able to draft the question.
But that doesn't mean they have to stand by passively as the recall campaigns are launched.
Recall efforts are damaging for the party in power. The biggest tactical recall effort was Kevin Falcon's "Total Recall" which targeted all 40 New Democrat MLAs in 1999.
Falcon maintained he wasn't a Liberal then, though it came out that he had previously been paid about $800 a week by the Liberals on a six-week contract, campaigned in a Lower Mainland riding for the party and gave Campbell "speech ideas, but not complete speeches," as Mike Smyth wrote in the Vancouver Province.
Total Recall flopped. Falcon couldn't raise enough money.
But that didn't really matter. The New Democrats had to focus on the threat to MLAs and, as a result, paid less attention to governing.
Campbell won't accept the Fight-HST proposals. But he should address the underlying the issues.
The commitment to a simple majority and binding outcome needs some legislative backing. It's not enough for a premier, who might not be in the job a year from now, to make a promise he can't keep.
And Campbell can say now how the referendum question will be developed and when the public will see it.
He can also explain why the vote should wait until next September, rather than being held in March. If the HST is really important for investment, the uncertainty is hurting British Columbian. He's changing the rules around other aspects of the vote. Why prolong the pain?
Campbell can't likely stop the recall campaigns. But with the right responses, he can make life a lot easier for the targeted MLAs.
Footnote: To be successful, a recall campaign must collect signatures from 40 per cent of registered voters within a 60-day window. It's a high threshold, which has never been reached. (Although one campaign might have made it; the MLA resigned before the signatures were counted.)
But the anti-HST group starts with a battalion of volunteers and a strong base in most ridings.
The goal is to convince voters to fire an MLA. So campaigners talk about the rotten, incompetent person representing the voters in Victoria.
And it looks like we're into recall season.
Bill Vander Zalm and the Fight-HST crowd gave Gordon Campbell a choice this week.
Accept their proposals for how and when the HST referendum would be conducted or face three recall campaigns against Liberal MLAs in January, with an extra campaign launched every month after that.
It was all pretty clever. Vander Zalm even announced a Survivor-style competition for those ridings hoping to be the first to launch recall campaigns. The challenge is to sign up canvassers over the next eight weeks; ridings with the most participants launch recall campaigns first.
Even the five conditions the anti-HST campaigners set were crafted to place Campbell in a tight corner.
Two of the demands - to make the initiative binding and require only a simple majority vote to kill the tax - had already been accepted by Campbell last week in a surprise announcement. (The initiative legislation says the threshold is 50 per cent of all eligible voters, not just those who show up at the pools. Even then, he result isn't binding.)
The other three demands were tougher.
The Fight-HST People wanted the referendum held under some legally binding framework, like the Referendum Act, with spending limits and other safeguards.
They wanted the question to be drafted by Elections BC and approved by "both the government and Fight HST."
And they wanted the referendum held this year.
Pushy. But except for the timing, Fight HST isn't really out of line. Don't forget, the group succeeded in a petition process which was supposed to result in a vote next September on the bill to kill the HST that they had drafted. That's the law.
Now Campbell appears to be making up his own rules.
A little compromise and consensus is in order.
The Liberals certainly won't accept a vote this year. They hope time will ease the anger over the way the HST was introduced and let them convince people the tax is a good thing.
And they want the advantage of being able to draft the question.
But that doesn't mean they have to stand by passively as the recall campaigns are launched.
Recall efforts are damaging for the party in power. The biggest tactical recall effort was Kevin Falcon's "Total Recall" which targeted all 40 New Democrat MLAs in 1999.
Falcon maintained he wasn't a Liberal then, though it came out that he had previously been paid about $800 a week by the Liberals on a six-week contract, campaigned in a Lower Mainland riding for the party and gave Campbell "speech ideas, but not complete speeches," as Mike Smyth wrote in the Vancouver Province.
Total Recall flopped. Falcon couldn't raise enough money.
But that didn't really matter. The New Democrats had to focus on the threat to MLAs and, as a result, paid less attention to governing.
Campbell won't accept the Fight-HST proposals. But he should address the underlying the issues.
The commitment to a simple majority and binding outcome needs some legislative backing. It's not enough for a premier, who might not be in the job a year from now, to make a promise he can't keep.
And Campbell can say now how the referendum question will be developed and when the public will see it.
He can also explain why the vote should wait until next September, rather than being held in March. If the HST is really important for investment, the uncertainty is hurting British Columbian. He's changing the rules around other aspects of the vote. Why prolong the pain?
Campbell can't likely stop the recall campaigns. But with the right responses, he can make life a lot easier for the targeted MLAs.
Footnote: To be successful, a recall campaign must collect signatures from 40 per cent of registered voters within a 60-day window. It's a high threshold, which has never been reached. (Although one campaign might have made it; the MLA resigned before the signatures were counted.)
But the anti-HST group starts with a battalion of volunteers and a strong base in most ridings.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Those B.C. Rail Canucks' tickets
It was probably just a sideshow in terms of the B.C. Rail trial.
But Brian Kenning's time in the witness box offered an interesting look at the deep divides in B.C. these days.
Kenning is a Liberal supporter who was appointed a B.C. Rail director after the 2001 election. He was part of the board that recommended selling the railway. That happened in 2003.
But in 2004, the shrunken corporation spent $72,276 on Canucks tickets. In 2005, the Crown corporation spend $29,000 on BC Lion's tickets. In 2006, $45,349 for prime Canucks seats.
Companies buy hockey tickets in an attempt to influence customers. It wouldn't be seemly to offer the purchasing agent for a client $300, but tickets to a Canucks-Canadiens game are OK.
B.C. Rail really didn't have any potential customers to woo. The corporation was reduced to selling real estate and administering a 40-km spur line used by real railway companies. So spending $150,000 on tickets to pro sports looks suspiciously like self-indulgence.
Meanwhile, Kenning testified he was paid $400,000 for sitting on the corporation's board for eight years. Even when it was down to 50 to 60 employees and less than $20 million in revenue, he collected about a $40,000 a year.
And CEO Kevin Mahoney received $570,000 in salary and benefits for heading a company with $18 million in revenues and a few dozen employees in 2007.
What's striking is that this was all going on as the Liberals were putting every government program through a core review.
Anything not considered essential - support for child sex abuse victims, legal aid for battered wives, courthouses - was getting chopped.
But Canucks' tickets for executives at a Crown corporation, generous directors' fees and big management salaries somehow escaped that kind of scrutiny.
Those at the top of the economic food chain did very well. Those at the other end of the economy did not.
Consider MLAs, for example. In 2002, their pay has risen more than 30 per cent since 2002; the premier's compensation is up more than 55 per cent. (The average wage rose about 22 per cent in the same period; the minimum wage didn't change at all.)
Which, if it was based on real market forces, could be defended. But real market forces wouldn't see directors paid hundreds of thousand of dollars to oversee a tiny Crown corporation.
It all suggests a double standard based in which some spending on average British Columbians received close scrutiny; on the powerful, not so much.
Which leads, in a roundabout way, to the latest report on the province's finances.
Finance Minister Colin Hansen presented the first quarterly update for this the fiscal year, covering from April 1 to June 30. Spending is on track, except for - again - higher than expected wildfire-fighting costs.
But, after three months, the government thinks it might have missed the mark on some of the revenue projections. The actual revenue, largely due to higher-than-forecast corporate taxes, will be $2.7 billion higher than expected over four years.
That's enough to let the government move out of deficits a year ahead of schedule. In fact, with a few breaks, it could use the money to deliver a balanced budget next year.
But Hansen said the government has decided about 10 per cent of the money will go to reducing the deficit.
The rest - about $700 million in each of the next three years - will fund tax cuts or program spending.
That's prudent. The current three-year plan freezes spending on the children's ministry and for the solicitor general for three years. It cuts funding for tourism and the arts. Without some extra cash, there will be big problems as the 2013 election draws closer.
And the Liberals would very much like to have some tax cuts to ease the HST anger.
There are tough decisions still ahead. Except, it could appear, when it comes to pricey taxpayer-paid hockey tickets and MLA raises.
Footnote: The quarterly update also included a revised economic forecast, which is mostly positive. Growth is likely to be stronger than forecast this year and the outlook is good, the government says. The big risks include a "double dip" return to recession in the U.S. and a drop in housing demand in Canada.
But Brian Kenning's time in the witness box offered an interesting look at the deep divides in B.C. these days.
Kenning is a Liberal supporter who was appointed a B.C. Rail director after the 2001 election. He was part of the board that recommended selling the railway. That happened in 2003.
But in 2004, the shrunken corporation spent $72,276 on Canucks tickets. In 2005, the Crown corporation spend $29,000 on BC Lion's tickets. In 2006, $45,349 for prime Canucks seats.
Companies buy hockey tickets in an attempt to influence customers. It wouldn't be seemly to offer the purchasing agent for a client $300, but tickets to a Canucks-Canadiens game are OK.
B.C. Rail really didn't have any potential customers to woo. The corporation was reduced to selling real estate and administering a 40-km spur line used by real railway companies. So spending $150,000 on tickets to pro sports looks suspiciously like self-indulgence.
Meanwhile, Kenning testified he was paid $400,000 for sitting on the corporation's board for eight years. Even when it was down to 50 to 60 employees and less than $20 million in revenue, he collected about a $40,000 a year.
And CEO Kevin Mahoney received $570,000 in salary and benefits for heading a company with $18 million in revenues and a few dozen employees in 2007.
What's striking is that this was all going on as the Liberals were putting every government program through a core review.
Anything not considered essential - support for child sex abuse victims, legal aid for battered wives, courthouses - was getting chopped.
But Canucks' tickets for executives at a Crown corporation, generous directors' fees and big management salaries somehow escaped that kind of scrutiny.
Those at the top of the economic food chain did very well. Those at the other end of the economy did not.
Consider MLAs, for example. In 2002, their pay has risen more than 30 per cent since 2002; the premier's compensation is up more than 55 per cent. (The average wage rose about 22 per cent in the same period; the minimum wage didn't change at all.)
Which, if it was based on real market forces, could be defended. But real market forces wouldn't see directors paid hundreds of thousand of dollars to oversee a tiny Crown corporation.
It all suggests a double standard based in which some spending on average British Columbians received close scrutiny; on the powerful, not so much.
Which leads, in a roundabout way, to the latest report on the province's finances.
Finance Minister Colin Hansen presented the first quarterly update for this the fiscal year, covering from April 1 to June 30. Spending is on track, except for - again - higher than expected wildfire-fighting costs.
But, after three months, the government thinks it might have missed the mark on some of the revenue projections. The actual revenue, largely due to higher-than-forecast corporate taxes, will be $2.7 billion higher than expected over four years.
That's enough to let the government move out of deficits a year ahead of schedule. In fact, with a few breaks, it could use the money to deliver a balanced budget next year.
But Hansen said the government has decided about 10 per cent of the money will go to reducing the deficit.
The rest - about $700 million in each of the next three years - will fund tax cuts or program spending.
That's prudent. The current three-year plan freezes spending on the children's ministry and for the solicitor general for three years. It cuts funding for tourism and the arts. Without some extra cash, there will be big problems as the 2013 election draws closer.
And the Liberals would very much like to have some tax cuts to ease the HST anger.
There are tough decisions still ahead. Except, it could appear, when it comes to pricey taxpayer-paid hockey tickets and MLA raises.
Footnote: The quarterly update also included a revised economic forecast, which is mostly positive. Growth is likely to be stronger than forecast this year and the outlook is good, the government says. The big risks include a "double dip" return to recession in the U.S. and a drop in housing demand in Canada.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
The cloud over Elections B.C.
The Times Colonist on Elections B.C.
"It's troubling -- and wrong -- that Elections B.C. is being restructured when the party in power has weakened its independence.
"It is also troubling that the Liberal government failed to take the basic steps to preserve the non-partisan nature of the office that oversees elections, recall campaigns and initiatives in the province....
"The government knew for eight years a new chief electoral officer would be required in June, but failed to take the basic steps to ensure a smooth transition. Its failure has created controversy around Elections B.C.'s handling of the anti-HST petition and, now, this restructuring.
If, as expected, recall campaigns are launched, more concern about the office's independence is likely.
The restructuring should stop until a new chief electoral officer is in place. And the government should be prepared to recall the legislature this fall to ensure that happens as soon as possible."
The rest of the editorial can be found here.
"It's troubling -- and wrong -- that Elections B.C. is being restructured when the party in power has weakened its independence.
"It is also troubling that the Liberal government failed to take the basic steps to preserve the non-partisan nature of the office that oversees elections, recall campaigns and initiatives in the province....
"The government knew for eight years a new chief electoral officer would be required in June, but failed to take the basic steps to ensure a smooth transition. Its failure has created controversy around Elections B.C.'s handling of the anti-HST petition and, now, this restructuring.
If, as expected, recall campaigns are launched, more concern about the office's independence is likely.
The restructuring should stop until a new chief electoral officer is in place. And the government should be prepared to recall the legislature this fall to ensure that happens as soon as possible."
The rest of the editorial can be found here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
